MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Kr</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mprescripts/><mml:mrow><mml:mn>36</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>96</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>–Low-<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math> Boundary of the Island of Deformation at <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>

2017· article· lv· W2607437494 on OpenAlexaff
J. Dudouet, A. Lemasson, G. Duchêne, M. Rejmund, E. Clément, C. Michelagnoli, F. Didierjean, A. Korichi, Guillaume Maquart, O. Stézowski, C. Lizarazo, R. M. Pérez-Vidal, C. Andreoiu, G. de Angelis, A. Astier, C. Delafosse, I. Deloncle, Zsolt Dombrádi, G. de France, A. Gadea, A. Gottardo, B. Jacquot, Peter G. Jones, T. Konstantinopoulos, I. Kuti, F. Le Blanc, S. M. Lenzi, G. Li, R. Lozeva, B. Million, D. R. Napoli, A. Navin, C. M. Petrache, N. Pietralla, D. Ralet, M. Ramdhane, N. Redon, C. Schmitt, D. Sohler, D. Verney, D. Barrientos, B. Birkenbach, I. Burrows, L. Charles, J. Collado, D. M. Cullen, P. Désesquelles, C. Domingo‐Pardo, V. González, L. J. Harkness-Brennan, H. Hess, D. S. Judson, M. Karolak, W. Korten, M. Labiche, J. Ljungvall, R. Menegazzo, D. Mengoni, A. Pullia, F. Recchia, P. Reiter, M.‐D. Salsac, E. Sanchís, Ch. Theisen, J. J. Valiente-Dobón, M. Zielińska

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeEuropean Regional Development FundHelmholtz International Center for FAIRGeneralitat ValencianaMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadLOEWE Zentrum AdRIABundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEuropean Commission
KeywordsExcited statePhysicsProtonNeutronAtomic physicsQuadrupoleEnergy (signal processing)Nuclear magnetic resonanceNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prompt γ-ray spectroscopy of the neutron-rich ^{96}Kr, produced in transfer- and fusion-induced fission reactions, has been performed using the combination of the Advanced Gamma Tracking Array and the VAMOS++ spectrometer. A second excited state, assigned to J^{π}=4^{+}, is observed for the first time, and a previously reported level energy of the first 2^{+} excited state is confirmed. The measured energy ratio R_{4/2}=E(4^{+})/E(2^{+})=2.12(1) indicates that this nucleus does not show a well-developed collectivity contrary to that seen in heavier N=60 isotones. This new measurement highlights an abrupt transition of the degree of collectivity as a function of the proton number at Z=36, of similar amplitude to that observed at N=60 at higher Z values. A possible reason for this abrupt transition could be related to the insufficient proton excitations in the g_{9/2}, d_{5/2}, and s_{1/2} orbitals to generate strong quadrupole correlations or to the coexistence of competing different shapes. An unexpected continuous decrease of R_{4/2} as a function of the neutron number up to N=60 is also evidenced. This measurement establishes the Kr isotopic chain as the low-Z boundary of the island of deformation for N=60 isotones. A comparison with available theoretical predictions using different beyond mean-field approaches shows that these models fail to reproduce the abrupt transitions at N=60 and Z=36.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5540.661

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207